As you conclude, "[Evolution] can also select for individuals that carry successful ecosystems." This article's focus is on the question of what, exactly, these other bacteria are doing in the gut ecosystem to enable survival on soybean plants. Obviously, genetic changes may have occurred in the bacteria to allow them to successfully colonize the guts of corn rootworms. A separate question would be whether any genetic changes have occurred in the insect to create a more hospitable niche in their guts for these other bacteria (and possibly even fungi).

I don't know if GMOs should be mentioned in the comments, but they should definitely have been mentioned in the article, since Bt corn is supposed to kill the rootworm too (up to 3 different strains of Bt stacked in GM corn).

Does this rootworm evolution happens on Bt crops too, or just the few natural history museum fields of non-GM crops? The question is absolutely critical to such an article. Would a Bt soybeans, combined together with their natural inhibitor, be able to fragilize the rootworm enough to kill,it before next season's corn?

The DOI link is broken, but I suppose the original paper is behind a firewall anyway, so I could not check.

I'm a bit confused here. So soybeans produce inhibitors that prevent them being digested by insects. But somehow, they don't have any effect on humans so we're able to keep eating them. What is so special about humans that allow us to keep consuming soybeans?

I don't know if GMOs should be mentioned in the comments, but they should definitely have been mentioned in the article, since Bt corn is supposed to kill the rootworm too (up to 3 different strains of Bt stacked in GM corn).

Does this rootworm evolution happens on Bt crops too, or just the few natural history museum fields of non-GM crops? The question is absolutely critical to such an article. Would a Bt soybeans, combined together with their natural inhibitor, be able to fragilize the rootworm enough to kill,it before next season's corn?

The DOI link is broken, but I suppose the original paper is behind a firewall anyway, so I could not check.

Farmers are getting screwed big time because there is a Bt-resistant Rootworm and it is the farmers' fault. You see, Monsanto recommended farmers to devote a small area of the field to grow non-Bt corn in order to minimize the chances of the bugs to develop resistance to the toxins but since the Bt corn worked so well the farmers got overconfident.. And the rest is history.

How about not growing anything for a year as part of the rotation plan? I understand that farmers would not be keen on seeing some of their fields unproductive but wouldn't the no-crop year decimate the rootworm population ?

I'm a bit confused here. So soybeans produce inhibitors that prevent them being digested by insects. But somehow, they don't have any effect on humans so we're able to keep eating them. What is so special about humans that allow us to keep consuming soybeans?

I know these are really wise thoughts, but I just can't help laughing.

While this appears at first glance to prove their point about the gut bacteria, I'm not sure that it's a solid argument. Even if the bacteria had nothing to do with the soybean tolerance, "antibiotic suppression of gut bacteria" tends to wreck any animal's ability to digest food. The fact that the original insect strain can't digest the soybean anyway and dies quickly among soybean plants can explain why it wasn't affected by the antibiotic.

The authors should be asking "How likely is it that we would see this result if our hypothesis (that a change in gut bacteria allowed the insect to eat soybean plants) were false, compared to if it were true?" Based on just the abstract (the full article requires a paid subscription) I think the answer is "pretty darn likely." I'm not a hard-core philosophical Bayesianist, but it seems like this simple Bayesian question weakens the link between their experimental results and their conclusions.

I'm a bit confused here. So soybeans produce inhibitors that prevent them being digested by insects. But somehow, they don't have any effect on humans so we're able to keep eating them. What is so special about humans that allow us to keep consuming soybeans?

For human consumption, soybeans must be cooked with "wet" heat to destroy the trypsin inhibitors (serine protease inhibitors). Raw soybeans, including the immature green form, are toxic to humans, swine, chickens, and in fact, all monogastric animals.

Assuming that the authors did their statistics correctly, which I don't believe they did, why don't we open McDonald's for the bugs. That will make them lazy, fat and will destroy their digestive tract. :-)

How about not growing anything for a year as part of the rotation plan? I understand that farmers would not be keen on seeing some of their fields unproductive but wouldn't the no-crop year decimate the rootworm population ?

Weeds, whatever was planted there last, and other plants will grow if the farmer plants nothing. Nature is good at spreading seed from the little critters around the field.

For the most part, crop rotation—planting different produce in different years—is advertised as a way of helping the soil by keeping a single crop from draining it of some types of nutrients.

This is incorrect. Crop rotation's primary purpose is to prevent the build up of species/family specific pathogens. Although plants vary in their need for micro nutrients and N-P-K requirements in an industrial (corn/soy rotation) environment these nutrients are (over)provided by adding fertilizers, not soil getting replenished by biological activity. Even if you where to use the soy to add nitrogen back to the soil (which would mean plowing it back in instead of harvesting the beans) you would end up with out enough potassium and phosphorous very quickly. In nature most stuff rots where it grows, animal life focuses and moves around nutrients and a wide range of plants pull up stuff from the subsoil (something corn does not do very well).

Sanitation basics are the same for plants as animals. Living in your own filth is never a good thing.

And yeah, this assumes growing corn/soy but that's what we (in the US) do almost exclusively.

In nature something like this usually would be reduced/stopped by increased predation and the fact that if they are eating corn it would become a lower % of available forage. This is why a lot of the sustainable farming folks do stuff like run chickens in their fields & mix their crops instead of cycling through a very limited number.

I'm a bit confused here. So soybeans produce inhibitors that prevent them being digested by insects. But somehow, they don't have any effect on humans so we're able to keep eating them. What is so special about humans that allow us to keep consuming soybeans?

As Rosencrants mentioned, we eat the beans instead of the roots.Edited: I missed zza_se's post about cooking, so no need to bring it up again.